On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia sfmammamia@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
James,
The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your original post is that you seem to conflate "the Foundation" with "Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.
People here have given you several examples of the types of Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think the point has been well-made that there are certain types of information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters private and confidential. I thought you accepted those examples.
How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a separate matter. Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.
Teresa
Please see my previous reply to David Gerard.
Also, people here have equally given me examples of how *Wikipedia* is run in a non-transparent way that they are *not*happy about.